Posts by Jeremy Turner3

We ended up reaching the same conclusion as you... based on what we pulled from the Uber website, there’s nothing stating that anyone can’t apply for a city concession. There are probably restrictions in place, but wouldn't it be helpful if someone actually knew what they were? How much does a concession cost, or do you need to belong to some specific association?

I agree that the city or the Dražava shouldn't overreach in the ride-share sector; their job should be guaranteeing passenger safety. When I brought up new vehicles, that was my reasoning. For instance, why not make side airbags a requirement? Only newer cars have them. As for colors and branding, most major US cities set those requirements so tourists and locals can easily spot an Uber. These aren't barriers meant to kill competition; they are standards meant to ensure a baseline level of service quality for the passenger.

That’s probably where the confusion lies... though looking at this, it doesn't seem to be the case. It says here you have to pay a membership fee and meet certain requirements only if you want to join the association. Nowhere does it state that you can't just walk into a municipal office and apply for a concession without becoming a member first.

Someone who actually knows the ins and outs of this should weigh in.

It’s hardly surprising they cost this much... out of everything I've looked at over the last few days, whether in the USA or Canada, this is easily the best Uber site yet:

Here is their breakdown:

For an interested party to join the Ocean Association, they must meet these requirements:
1. Register a business for providing transportation services (Department of Economy)
2. Complete transportation training or undergo retraining for a commercial driver's license
3. Pass a taxi exam (administered by City Hall)
4. Purchase 2 concessions for operating a taxi service
5. Be at least 21 years old
6. Have at least 2 years of driving experience
7. Pay an Ocean Association enrollment fee of $3333, which grants the right to join the Association's radio network

So, according to this, they are heavily regulated yet still privatized. Anyone can buy a concession provided they check all those boxes.

Of course, I don't agree with this setup. It seems to me the "association" has zero incentive to operate efficiently; you run the risk of conflicts of interest and various shady dealings. In principle, the sector is privatized, but it’s bound by this concession system. Concessions should stay if we want some semblance of order, but a concession shouldn't be a massive expense—its purpose should be consumer protection. Furthermore, joining the radio network and paying membership fees shouldn't be mandatory for everyone; competition needs to be encouraged there too. This is just a quick glance, though. If anyone actually has the time, read through all the "rules of the game" and make some suggestions... only then are you ready to start a petition.

Now, it would be a different story if these drivers had their own association to reduce overhead costs—say, by sharing a single radio dispatch—rather than being forced into an association just to be allowed to work.

The bottom line? A concession shouldn't carry such a heavy price tag (does anyone actually know what one costs right now?). Instead, the city should simply mandate certain standards to protect consumers, while membership fees and association ties should remain optional. That would actually foster competition.

In fact, a concession could cost a small amount if the city is responsible for maintaining taxi stands and similar infrastructure... but it shouldn't be anything substantial.

Uber

Right now, Uber prices in Ljubljana range from 80 to 150 SIT/km ($0.86– $1.50) with a base fare of 150 SIT ($1.50).

So, here’s what I found. It's cheaper than Washington, D.C., assuming your info on D.C. rates is actually accurate. I’m assuming fuel costs would be similar, neither city provides subsidies to drivers, overhead remains comparable, and there's enough demand to sustain it. If those variables hold, then this is the realistic rate you'd see in a competitive market.

One could dive deeper into an analysis of operating costs, local demand, or traffic infrastructure, but let's just say prices should hover in this ballpark. When you're drafting a petition, you need to present the data this way if you want to actually make an impact.

jadehound53,

I agree with you that competition is necessary—not the chaotic kind, but something regulated and functional. That’s always been my stance.

But when you actually dig into the data, you realize that while competition might drive up quality, the prices probably wouldn't budge much. You might see a marginal dip here or there, but nothing substantial.

Admittedly, comparing different cities is a mess because there are so many variables at play. Every urban landscape is unique. You have to account for the cost of living, gas prices, public transit reliability, road infrastructure, employment rates, and even how commercial zones are distributed—whether offices are crammed downtown or spread out logically. It’s complicated. To get any kind of realistic picture, it would probably be best to compare Washington, D.C. with nearby metropolitan areas of similar scale and infrastructure. Anything else is just guesswork.

I didn't even bother looking at demand because the supply side is already failing.

jadehound53, I'm not trying to act like I know everything—and I have to qualify that statement now since people tend to get defensive—but the reality is that everyone has a starting cost. These aren't just some small-time local gigs; as far as I know, every business has overhead. In our case, we have $8.25, which seems pretty reasonable to me. If you don't account for that, you could end up wasting 20 or 30 minutes just picking someone up, then lose another 10 minutes while they travel two miles, and if you have to head back to the base, you've burned 45 minutes just to earn $2.00. If demand were so high that you could just circle the streets and pick people up constantly, maybe I'd understand ignoring the starting cost, but that's completely unrealistic. I don't know, maybe I saw drivers in New York cruising like that, but I'm sure most Uber drivers there still wait for a dispatch call.

You can't just say, "Here, take three bucks," and assume you've hit equilibrium. Not without knowing the total costs, the demand, or the competition. But I can tell you this: if you have a franchise and you're working non-stop, you probably wouldn't even break even at that price.

Give us some more details... what kind of cars would you run? Model, age, anything?

How many miles do you think an Uber driver would clock in a day in that scenario? Let's say there's zero competition—you just secured a monopoly like the current players, but actually offered better terms?

Essentially, your theory regarding Public-Private Partnerships is quite straightforward. It all boils down to one question: can the private sector execute a project more efficiently or at a lower cost than the government? For this to actually work, the federal bureaucracy needs to be completely transparent—meaning full disclosure of information, open bidding processes, and actively encouraging private sector collaboration. Of course, you can't ignore the need to fight corruption, otherwise the whole thing is a wash. But just as importantly, you have to figure out how to jumpstart a private sector that might be stuck in neutral.

Speaking of my earlier point about internet access in schools, I just read that AT&T is partnering with the Department of Education to fund the rollout of high-speed internet across all schools. Naturally, there’s a mutual interest at play here. AT&T might shoulder the initial costs and subsidize the project for a while, but in the long run, they secure a massive new user base and a steady stream of revenue. It might not be the perfect model, but the core concept remains: the private sector funds public initiatives, provided they can find their own angle.

jadehound53,

I don't understand why so many people on these forums feel the need to take everything personally, just like you do. It’s not like I was attacking you. Honestly, what you think of me doesn't move the needle—whether you think I'm acting superior, or that I moved abroad just for the money, or whatever else. I was simply trying to have an objective discussion about the topic at hand.

You were the one claiming we shouldn't compare Uber services in the USA and America because of the difference in living standards. My point was that standard actually has very little to do with it. Then you turned on me, questioning why I was even bringing up standards in this thread.

Frank Lee6 raised some valid points; he identified the actual issue much more effectively than you did, considering you're the one who started this whole petition. My take is that your approach to this topic has been incredibly shallow and naive. On top of that, you seem unwilling to accept differing perspectives or engage in a rational debate about the problem.

Since you want me to "teach" you something: if you want a productive discussion, stick to the topic. Stick to facts and figures, and stop dragging in all this other garbage. You haven't managed to make two decent posts in this entire damn thread. Get it together.

Even your average American can't afford to be riding in an Uber every single day just to get to work and back.

Beyond that, most Americans actually view ride-sharing as relatively expensive. Then you have people in America with these totally delusional expectations—acting like they're in a movie where you just wave your hand, hail a cab, go wherever you want, and toss a few coins at the driver. That’s a different reality entirely. jadehound53 started from the assumption that he'd rather take an Uber than deal with the smell of the MTA, but let's be real: for those who haven't traveled much, the MTA is actually decent public transit. Don't go thinking things are significantly better everywhere else.

I’m not sure if my previous point was fully understood. Whether American incomes are lower than those in the USA is actually irrelevant when determining Uber pricing in a perfect free market. In such a market, competition drives prices down to the absolute floor—just enough to cover overhead and pay drivers the bare minimum they’re willing to accept to stay on the road. Of course, a "perfect market" doesn't exist in any sector; a commodity market would be one example, but even those are rare.

Without getting bogged down in heavy economic theory, my point is that cost structures and scales are likely similar in both countries, so prices should hover around the same level. How much you earn compared to John Smith in Chicago shouldn't dictate what an Uber costs. Drivers can't provide a ride without covering their expenses. You might argue that in the USA, there are more users because people can afford Uber more often, which should theoretically push prices up due to supply and demand, allowing for higher margins. But I don't buy that. When you have a high-demand market, you also get intense competition. So, in a US city comparable to Chicago, you might have 20 different companies, and their margins are probably just as thin as the drivers in America.

I keep coming back to this: even if the sector in America is privatized, prices will likely remain similar. The service quality might improve and become more efficient, but I doubt that will significantly slash the price. Even if they deregulate tomorrow, I don't see 20 different companies surviving. There isn't room for more than three or four. Maybe a few pop up at first, but the inefficient ones will fail quickly, leaving only a handful standing. I support privatization, but I think some people are overestimating how much it will actually change Uber prices in Chicago.

First off, the name of the city doesn't matter; its parameters are similar enough to Chicago.

Second, go back and read one of my earlier posts. I already mentioned how many Uber companies operate in that city. This isn't about being arrogant; it's just that if we want a decent conversation, people need to actually read what was written.

Third, just because an average American has a higher income and can afford a realistic Uber fare doesn't mean our drivers have lower overhead. Those two things aren't connected at all. By that logic, every product and service in America should be cheaper than in the USA, which obviously isn't true. It isn't about your income; it’s about the efficiency and the costs faced by the person providing the service. Since more Americans can afford the rides, it simply benefits American drivers, who might eventually lower their prices due to higher volume.

Fourth, fuel is the primary expense in the ride-share business. Regardless of engine size, gas is more expensive in America (in the USA, they mostly drive 6-cylinder vehicles, but they spend most of their time on highways, which means lower consumption). Similarly, car insurance for drivers is more expensive in the USA than in America, which is another significant cost. To be fair, the cost of living is also higher in the USA than in America, so US drivers need to earn more than American drivers just to maintain the same standard of living. When you crunch all the numbers, the prices should end up roughly in the same ballpark. The issue under debate is the quality of service, not the price.

Fifth, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but you have to weigh all the facts and identify the actual problem before you start petitions and various (un)justified public outbursts.

It isn't true to claim my assumption is just laziness. Nor is it true that monopolies are considered the number one enemy in the USA. First off, you rarely encounter a pure monopoly where a single firm dominates an entire market; more often, you deal with oligarchies (where a few companies control the market through collusion) or monopolistic competition (where several players exist without explicit agreements).

I never suggested that the way Uber operates in Chicago is a good model. I was simply outlining the assumptions city officials work from. Even US municipal authorities impose similar restrictions... not just anyone can jump into the ride-sharing business. You need a specific type of car, a precise color, and it can't be older than a certain year. There are a thousand different rules. In short, the ride-hailing sector here is far from a totally free market.

I already told you what an Uber ride costs in my city, which is slightly larger than Chicago.

Now, why don't you tell me how much an Uber costs in Chicago? Then we can actually move this debate forward.

From what I know about the ride-hailing sector in Chicago, the issue is more about poor quality—unavailability, scams, rudeness, and an aging fleet—than it is about being overpriced. I’m sticking to my original point: we should probably open the sector up to more competition, but we must maintain strict rules of the game to guarantee a baseline standard and protect the consumer. My assessment is that the end result would be similar pricing, but significantly better service.

It’s obvious to me that Uber in Chicago doesn't provide quality service for what they charge. I'm not taking sides for or against a monopoly, because without actually understanding the underlying issues, it's hard to know what the right answer really is. Honestly, privatization combined with opening up the sector while maintaining enough regulation to guarantee certain standards would likely be the best way forward.

But you could also look at it from another angle: you could privatize the MTA instead of having commuters and non-commuters alike cover their losses. Go to an American city roughly the size of Chicago, and you'll see exactly that—a privatized version of the MTA that only runs profitable routes, usually once an hour. Plus, they still hold a concession, so no one can compete with them, but the city isn't stuck dealing with the losses like Chicago does with its transit system. Is that what you want?

Or take a look at what happens when ExxonMobil gets privatized; suddenly, every gas station that was legally required to exist in the middle of nowhere will shut down immediately. Private capital simply won't subsidize unprofitable locations...

Then you get back to Uber and wonder what would happen if the service were completely deregulated... say, if any private citizen with a car could just sign up as a driver. You'd end up with cars of every color, varying qualities, and wildly different prices. From a city administration perspective, you can't allow total anarchy; you need some level of oversight. So you might decide that not just anyone can operate, but only those who can meet certain criteria—like having at least ten vehicles of a specific standard and color (that's a simplified version, anyway). By doing that, you've already created barriers to entry that push the market away from total free competition toward oligopolistic competition. Then the drivers come along and argue, "Look, we can't stay profitable unless we have a certain daily volume, so give us a concession and we'll guarantee this level of service and these specific prices." Otherwise, if we have to deal with multiple competitors, we're only going to service the profitable neighborhoods, and prices will fluctuate based on the season, the quarter, or the day. Some might say that's fine—that's just the market—but sometimes the market isn't fair to everyone, so the city steps in and says, "Here is your concession, now you must meet our criteria, period."

I don't know what an Uber costs in Chicago, but let me tell you what they cost where I live in the USA.

In a city slightly larger than Chicago, there are about 20 private taxi companies. I'm not sure if they receive any city subsidies, though I doubt it, but here are their average rates:

$1.55 (base fare for one person)
$2 (per mile)

For every additional passenger, I believe you pay an extra $.60 per mile.

You also pay a small fee for luggage if you have any.

Keep in mind that gas prices here are significantly lower than in America—they change daily—and right now it's $1.35 per gallon (3.78 liters).

What does an Uber cost in Chicago?

PS> You also have to consider that many American cities are very spread out. In other words, a city with the same population as Chicago is often at least three times larger in terms of land area... and every city has a ring of highways surrounding it. If you're traveling from the south side to the north side, you'll get there relatively quickly by jumping on the beltway, but you'll be driving 20 or 30 miles to do it... which, of course, works out perfectly for the drivers.

I believe that’s exactly where things are heading. We’re talking about everything from major interstates to local infrastructure projects, though you can't realistically build everything through private means. You simply can't construct a massive highway system without either taking on debt or relying on tax revenue. Tolls alone won't cut it for a private investor, at least not in the early stages. Besides, if the tolls eventually become profitable enough, wouldn't it be better for the government to just take out a low-interest loan and pocket the profit themselves—assuming they have the resources and a solid credit rating?

Your hospital example is valid, but those kinds of obvious opportunities are rare. Ultimately, it comes down to whether the private sector recognizes the potential and whether the government is actually willing to cooperate.

The government needs to start acting like a modern, efficient corporation, focused on providing the best possible service to its citizens at the lowest cost. I think this type of public-private partnership would be a significant step forward.

If anyone has ideas for specific projects where this kind of collaboration could actually work, please share them. Just for the sake of discussion; there might be some interesting angles here.

My approach would always be to identify the core problem first. Once the problem is clear, you can determine if there's a viable way to solve it.

Take these problems, for instance:

Healthcare—substandard service levels and costs that consistently blow past the allocated budget.

Education—students lacking reliable internet access.

And so on.

For example, in education, an ideal scenario would involve a few companies stepping up and saying, "We'll outfit every school in America with two computer labs provided via a lease, including 24/7 high-speed internet." The companies cover all the upfront capital expenditures, and the schools simply pay a monthly fee for the lease and connectivity. If the schools ran a cost-benefit analysis, they might find they could save money elsewhere and still afford the monthly installments. Of course, you have to consider that these companies would be gaining thousands of recurring customers, so they should be able to offer a substantial discount. Imagine if domestic tech firms, perhaps similar to Dell or HP, stepped in to provide hardware on a lease cycle that refreshes every three to five years. Since this supports domestic industry—specifically the high-tech sector the government should be prioritizing—the state could repurpose certain subsidies to support companies in that sector that directly benefit American education. Over time, those monthly costs would likely drop as the initial setup and training expenses are amortized.

Naturally, this is a massive simplification, much like the hospital scenario. However, it would be highly beneficial if either the government or a major private organization, like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, funded and established a dedicated task force. This group would focus exclusively on identifying and proposing these types of projects to both the government and the private sector. It would serve everyone's interests.